Opinions Needed - The Two Pentagon Attacks - Is this photo faked?

[agentbluescreen]

In the  What actually hit the Pentagon: The Two Pentagon Attacks (aka: an old stone apparently left unturned) thread, work continues to uncover and compile ever more convincing evidence that BOTH the "Planers" and the "Missilers" were BOTH right all along.

 This is a new conclusion drawn from the new Judicial Watch videos frame-comparison analysis that clearly shows that, taken together, even as they are, they convey equal evidence  that the building was hit by both a plane (OF some sort, apparently not AA 77) and a missile (of some sort) 8 seconds apart. I'm even coming across evidence that witnesses at the roadway saw a "second plane" go "in after it" even in sources like National Geographic

Where this missile came from, 8 seconds behind the drone plane and more evidence of it's obvious. long-suspicious suspected launcher is now still a focus of the investigation. This is the launcher, being permanently hustled off the lawn, finally, around 10:50 AM:



This is an aerial photo of it earlier, thought to be taken around 10:20 AM



which is an enlargement of this official aerial photo taken shortly after the collapse (which was at 10:10 AM) this is the Massoui Trial copy wich is better than the earlier one I found the tent in,




So the question arises that there are two trees on the Pentagon lawn by the road and each one of them still have one lamp post to the right of them. In satellite or birds-eye views these two trees mark the corners of the heliport out by the road, You can see them in this photo if you like (http://photos.upi.com/slideshow/full/9e6dce32ee7130ed3776c2ae2b51a7fa/A-birds-eye-view-amazing-aerial-shots_20.jpg)

So we know by the P20024 exhibit that each tree has a pole, and we can see them carry the tent off from between the trees by the further pole, finally later, so we have to presume that they moved the tent-launcher from pole number one by dragging it on it's pallet over under the tree by pole number 2, before they picked it up and walked off with it later. So I am hunting for more videos and photos of this thing there and I come across this picture where they actually photoshopped (I think I can see the cloning) the damn lamp pole out to hide or erase something, most likely when the tent was there because they didn't want to (OR couldn't manage to) do a 'clean' separation layer overlay-replacement to put the pole back in!

The green "Pentagon Parking" exit ramp sign is just ahead of the orange striped ambulance next to the tent-launcher by the first tree - it is in this huge hi-res photo, but the whole lamp post and tent launcher were removed! Unbelievable!

All I can tell is it's from an Olympus C3040Z and has some other camera data

What do you think?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2yI/R9Mdx41QtfI/AAAAAAAACrY/pnZMMOrn-QM/s1600-h/penny+elgas+plane+fragment+3.JPG

[agentbluescreen]

In the  What actually hit the Pentagon: The Two Pentagon Attacks (aka: an old stone apparently left unturned) thread, work continues to uncover and compile ever more convincing evidence that BOTH the "Planers" and the "Missilers" were BOTH right all along.

 This is a new conclusion drawn from the new Judicial Watch videos frame-comparison analysis that clearly shows that, taken together, even as they are, they convey equal evidence  that the building was hit by both a plane (OF some sort, apparently not AA 77) and a missile (of some sort) 8 seconds apart. I'm even coming across evidence that witnesses at the roadway saw a "second plane" go "in after it" even in sources like National Geographic

Where this missile came from, 8 seconds behind the drone plane and more evidence of it's obvious. long-suspicious suspected launcher is now still a focus of the investigation.

//clip//

What do you think?

Does anyone know what website it's from? I don't even remember how I came across it. It sure looks tampered with to me.

seems to be down this morning

[Jackson Holly]

ABS:

I for one appreciate your work on this 'dual hit' scenario - it certainly
explains more of the anomalies than my own conclusion, a drone plane
plus preset explosives. However, I think the blue-tarp photo = launcher
is your weakest link. The way it is being hoisted, it appears to be a
very light object ... not a heavy metal launcher.

I think we have to pursue another explanation for the missile launch
to pull the scenario together. Again THANKS for the effort.

[agentbluescreen]

Found another copy here

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG



look above the front hood of the black pickup truck

[Georgiacopguy]

ABS:

I for one appreciate your work on this 'dual hit' scenario - it certainly
explains more of the anomalies than my own conclusion, a drone plane
plus preset explosives. However, I think the blue-tarp photo = launcher
is your weakest link. The way it is being hoisted, it appears to be a
very light object ... not a heavy metal launcher.

I think we have to pursue another explanation for the missile launch
to pull the scenario together. Again THANKS for the effort.

I have to agree with you Jackson, a group of people hoisting something like that doesn't speak well to a mobile launcher of the size of what would be under that tarp. Generally, in my experience, which is minimal, and would be construed as an enthusiast, Id say there are three sizes of launchers; shoulder, mounted, and vehicle mounted.  Shoulder is self explanatory, mounted could be both tripod or vehicle mounted, where as vehicle mounted could range from a jeep to a dedicated vehicle. What ever is under that tarp is both too oddly shaped to be a shoulder or vehicle mounted launcher, and far too light to be a dedicated launcher vehicle. Since our government is so duplicitous in its actions, we may never know whats under that tarp, as they feel they do not have to explain themselves to us. Maybe post revolution, an inquiring mind will peek into the black project files and will be able to tell us what pictures like that truly represent.

[agentbluescreen]

ABS:

I for one appreciate your work on this 'dual hit' scenario - it certainly
explains more of the anomalies than my own conclusion, a drone plane
plus preset explosives. However, I think the blue-tarp photo = launcher
is your weakest link. The way it is being hoisted, it appears to be a
very light object ... not a heavy metal launcher.

I think we have to pursue another explanation for the missile launch
to pull the scenario together. Again THANKS for the effort.

Well not necessarily, with modern materials, all it needed to have was a hardwood pallet base, secured to a lightweight rectangular aluminum or titanium "main rail-frame and missile cradle floor", attached to the wood base's back by a  "elevator-hinge" and secured to the wood base's front by a latch.

Then, a 24" on center light aluminum or titanium framed "cowling" tensioned arch-stringer framework, with a firmly attached thermal lined cheap-tarp covering, firmly attached to the cowling framework everywhere but at bottoms and back. (the loose, burnt hanging lower skirts 1.5')

Finishing touch is the self-closing spring-loaded, top-hinged half-tub shaped front launch door, with nicely tapered lower cover flaps that wont catch on anything. The (2) "black patch(s)" on the side(s) of the tub-door are where the side pneumatic actuator(s)/springs are attached (the other is on the door-tub side not visible here). That is the perfect position for a door opener point.

All it needs to work is a RC Module, running a solenoid valve unit, controlling 4 high capacity "gas-pneumatic" actuators, (2) a front bottom-lock-latch and top rise-height-latch-lock/switch and a compressed gas (LCG) tank to power them. In operation the front bottom latch (release) trips open, 2 pneumatic "riser" shocks then elevate the front to the top latch/switch, (launch height reached) then it triggers the other 2 pneumatic shocks to open the door with the remaining CG.

Then, the "door open" switch clears the missile for launch. To close-up, it just needs to release the height-lock latch and bleed the shocks.

This would all-together be less than 100-180lbs, without a missile in it. Like a tent with some camp gear. The heaviest part is the pallet base. You can see the singe marks (from flames inside) on the bottom skirts of the darned thing! Nobody would make a "tent" like this.




The guys are holding it by the launch tube's lower missile cradle frame, so they must have made sure it was front-latched to the pallet

[Jackson Holly]

^ ^ ^

I guess we need some pictures of what we are talking about ... still
sounds pretty heavy to me ... the guys in the photo look like they
are lifting styrofoam - two or three of the guys are holding the bungee cords.

Also ... I keep picturing a BIG missile to do this kind of damage ... no?

[Georgiacopguy]

Why all the off the shelf stuff, when they have systems that are far more superior and readily available? Why depend on a secondary missile system that is easily visible? Why not affix a weapon to the jet which is to make the kamikaze run, and launch before impact? Why not just load ordinance on the jet slated to make impact? I think the simplest theory here might be the better theory, but lacking proof of whats truly under that tarp will only lead to speculation.

Also, a possibility is, what if the missile that is described was actually an anti aircraft missile that somebody launched to take out the jet they saw about to impact the Pentagon. Whether we know it or not, we can rest assured their are anti-aircraft batteries around the Pentagon and White House. While they may have received orders to stand down, that doesn't mean that some well meaning military officer or soldier did not see that jet and think in the back of his mind, "I have to do something." Of course such a person would promptly be 'disappeared', because if he saw it, and acted on it, and went against orders, they cannot count on such a person to stay quiet about it.

Well not necessarily, with modern materials, all it needed to have was a hardwood pallet base, secured to a lightweight rectangular aluminum or titanium "main rail-frame and missile cradle floor", attached to the wood base's back by a  "elevator-hinge" and secured to the wood base's front by a latch.

Then, a 24" on center light aluminum or titanium framed "cowling" tensioned arch-stringer framework, with a firmly attached thermal lined cheap-tarp covering, firmly attached to the cowling framework everywhere but at bottoms and back. (the loose, burnt hanging lower skirts 1.5')

Finishing touch is the self-closing spring-loaded, top-hinged half-tub shaped front launch door, with nicely tapered lower cover flaps that wont catch on anything. The (2) "black patch(s)" on the side(s) of the tub-door are where the side pneumatic actuator(s)/springs are attached (the other is on the door-tub side not visible here). That is the perfect position for a door opener point.

All it needs to work is a RC Module, running a solenoid valve unit, controlling 4 high capacity "gas-pneumatic" actuators, (2) a front bottom-lock-latch and top rise-height-latch-lock/switch and a compressed gas (LCG) tank to power them. In operation the front bottom latch (release) trips open, 2 pneumatic "riser" shocks then elevate the front to the top latch/switch, (launch height reached) then it triggers the other 2 pneumatic shocks to open the door with the remaining CG.

Then, the "door open" switch clears the missile for launch. To close-up, it just needs to release the height-lock latch and bleed the shocks.

This would all-together be less than 100-180lbs, without a missile in it. Like a tent with some camp gear. The heaviest part is the pallet base. You can see the singe marks (from flames inside) on the bottom skirts of the darned thing! Nobody would make a "tent" like this.




The guys are holding it by the launch tube's lower missile cradle frame, so they must have made sure it was front-latched to the pallet

[agentbluescreen]

Why all the off the shelf stuff, when they have systems that are far more superior and readily available? Why depend on a secondary missile system that is easily visible? Why not affix a weapon to the jet which is to make the kamikaze run, and launch before impact? Why not just load ordinance on the jet slated to make impact? I think the simplest theory here might be the better theory, but lacking proof of whats truly under that tarp will only lead to speculation.

Also, a possibility is, what if the missile that is described was actually an anti aircraft missile that somebody launched to take out the jet they saw about to impact the Pentagon. Whether we know it or not, we can rest assured their are anti-aircraft batteries around the Pentagon and White House. While they may have received orders to stand down, that doesn't mean that some well meaning military officer or soldier did not see that jet and think in the back of his mind, "I have to do something." Of course such a person would promptly be 'disappeared', because if he saw it, and acted on it, and went against orders, they cannot count on such a person to stay quiet about it.

Thank You for raising, and reminding us of that clear and intelligent point!

I also STRONGLY suspect that it would have been far easier to use the device intended for ground launching cruise missiles from a highway overpass, ramp or hidden location nearby, than to risk parading this tent around and covering it up. I now suspect it's a mere ruse, knowingly devised and promulgated to frustrate investigation and lead to misdirected "lawn missile launcher theories" that could easily later be debunked by other tampered-camera evidence..

AS I also showed, but (for sake of space while pointing out the old tent suspicion) missed pointing out before:



This thing, anywhere in DC or Virginia is all they needed. Any GLCM missile could have evaded populated areas, evaded radars, snuck in from any convenient direction and found it's way to it's GPS and Terrain Data Guided target without having to be launched from anywhere nearby in view of any witness.

That's why I posted further about this blue tent weirdness outside of the WHAT REALLY HIT thread

I"m more interested in who's covering it up now than it's actual relevance to the second attack. Looking at the JW Video it appears to me that the launcher could never have been this close, so the "very suspicious tent" must be a honey-pot!

[Georgiacopguy]

Thank You for raising that clear and intelligent point! I also STRONGLY suspect that it would have been far easier to use the device intended for ground launching cruise missiles from a highway overpass, ramp or hidden location nearby, while parading this tent around and covering it up as a mere ruse to frustrate investigation and lead to misdirected "missile launcher theories" that could easily later be debunked. AS I also showed but (for sake of space) missed pointing out before:



This thing, anywhere in DC or Virginia is all they needed. Any GLCM missile could have evaded populated areas, evaded radars, snuck in from any convenient direction and found it's way to it's GPS and Terrain Data Guided target without having to be launched from anywhere nearby in view of any witness.

That's why I posted further about this blue tent weirdness outside of the WHAT REALLY HIT thread

I"m more interested in who's covering it up now than it's actual relevance to the second attack.

I've heard from sources in the know that in order to disguise that launcher type you pictured above, that it was fitted with sides which allowed it to look like a typical tractor trailer when they are deployed and do not want to attract undue attention. With the sides affixed, and a typical tractor trailer frame paint job they can park it in a lot, and leave it there ready to deploy from its advanced position, with no one really the wiser. of course the people I talked to were referring to anti-aircraft launchers secreted around DC, but the same holds true for a cruise missile launcher I'm sure.

And I agree about the red or in this case blue herring. It could simply be a matter of making people argue ad hominem about something of no relevance, and which could later be used to argue against anyone who believes it when they reveal what was really under the tarp, or they just discredit anybody who would argue the point. I have a friend who used to be in Army Intelligence, I'll ask them and see what they think.

[agentbluescreen]

I've heard from sources in the know that in order to disguise that launcher type you pictured above, that it was fitted with sides which allowed it to look like a typical tractor trailer when they are deployed and do not want to attract undue attention. With the sides affixed, and a typical tractor trailer frame paint job they can park it in a lot, and leave it there ready to deploy from its advanced position, with no one really the wiser. of course the people I talked to were referring to anti-aircraft launchers secreted around DC, but the same holds true for a cruise missile launcher I'm sure.

And I agree about the red or in this case blue herring. It could simply be a matter of making people argue ad hominem about something of no relevance, and which could later be used to argue against anyone who believes it when they reveal what was really under the tarp, or they just discredit anybody who would argue the point. I have a friend who used to be in Army Intelligence, I'll ask them and see what they think.

I'v e already apologized privately to Jimd about initially strongly disagreeing with him so much. I remained stubbornly fooled by this for quite some time! Vainly trying to answer Jackson Holly again made me more certain of my stupid error as well.

It was in noticing the lengths they'd gone to to cover it up I finally started to realize it's true purpose.

[Georgiacopguy]

I'v e already apologized privately to Jimd about initially strongly disagreeing with him so much. I remained stubbornly fooled by this for quite some time! Vainly trying to answer Jackson Holly again made me more certain of my stupid error as well.

It was in noticing the lengths they'd gone to to cover it up I finally started to realize it's true purpose.

Well, we often in fight about some of the silliest and most random things. Sometimes because it's just our nature as humans, other times because we bite the bait. It is what it is brother. Live and learn...eh, enough cliches....lol. But I do hope ya'll find peace over the issue...anyhow, I talked to the friend of mine who was Army Intel, and they wouldn't really nail down my question one way or the other. Nor would they answer what they felt was under the tarp when I showed them the picture. Wouldn't even speculate. Also wondered out loud where the picture came from, voicing they had never seen it before in regards to 9/11. So take all that as you will. (I use They, because they are no longer Army Intel, but they are presently in the reserves finishing out for their retirement. So I'd rather preserve their identity as much as possible.)

[dre4dwolf]

its easier to take things out of a photo than to put things in.

The photo is very fuzzy.... would need expert to see which photo is fake

[Kilika]

its easier to take things out of a photo than to put things in.

The photo is very fuzzy.... would need expert to see which photo is fake

Your correct from my experience, it is MUCH harder to put something in a photo than it is to remove it. In graphics terms, all you need to use is the "clone tool". I've done some photo retouch work on old photos that are torn and worn, and made them look nearly new, and I'm not even really that skilled when compared to professional retouchers.

The light pole has been removed from the ground level photo. No idea why, but like agent pointed out, it SHOULD be where that black pickup is, but it's not there like it is in the ariel photo.

[agentbluescreen]

Your correct from my experience, it is MUCH harder to put something in a photo than it is to remove it. In graphics terms, all you need to use is the "clone tool". I've done some photo retouch work on old photos that are torn and worn, and made them look nearly new, and I'm not even really that skilled when compared to professional retouchers.

The light pole has been removed from the ground level photo. No idea why, but like agent pointed out, it SHOULD be where that black pickup is, but it's not there like it is in the ariel photo.

It's funny this was the icing on the cake that proved to me I was completely wrong and had been totally fooled about the true reason for and threat to their elaborately contrived story that the Blue Tent posed to them. It was that moment when I finally was open to accepting Jimd's damn green airplane that I finally started to look at the whole range of evidence and decided to enlarge the crappy image I had for some reason falsely assumed to have been a missile launcher for so long....

There was a far more important reason why they were worried about that tent - this photo has obviously been doctored the fire-lights in the windows  - where the pole (and tent) was - are at the wrong spots (heights).